A while back I wrote an article that explained why “random” does not exist at Powerplay Manager. The debate still rages on the PPM forums however, that there is too much “random” in the game.
So, I wanted to take a few minutes to explain this idea of “chance” a little further.
As i’d previously stated, the PPM match results in both hockey and soccer are made up of hundreds of individual scenarios, each with more than one possible result. A shooter takes a shot, he either scores or misses, etc etc so on and so forth. The game result itself is not generated from a single calculation, but rather a multitude of single-scenario ones. It appears that this is where people get confused on this issue, as all too often we hear that Team A with more stars lost to Team B with fewer stars. Well, stars mean nothing when it comes to the game engine, they’re simply a visual depiction of a teams “overall” strength. But overall strength is irrelevant when it comes to a forward taking on a defender, or a winger on a breakaway.
The following is a typical scenario in PPM soccer. I am using soccer in the example simply because the live game was only a few hours back and it’s fresh in my mind. In the live game, the text would show something similar to:
Player A runs the ball and comes up against a defender, he flips the ball one way, goes the other way and then takes on the goalie. He shoots, and the goalie makes a save but concedes a corner.
A scenario seen in most football matches the world over.
Let’s break this down.
Calculation #1: Forward vs Defender
The game will look at the forward and take into account his attributes, experience, chemistry etc. It will then look at the defender and take into account his attributes, energy, experience etc. If home-field advantage is used, that is added to the calculation to strengthen one of the players odds of winning the one on one battle. In this scenario the forward, who has higher skills and is the better player walks around the defender. End of calculation.
Calculation #2: Forward vs Goalie
Like above, the system will now run a whole new calculation using the attributes, energy, experience etc of both the forward and the goalie and works out what chances each player has of either scoring or making the save. Does the shooter miss the net? Does the goalie catch the ball? does the goalie save it but concede a corner? There are multiple scenarios all worked out in this gigantic couldren of chance. The shooter strikes the ball, the goalie gets a hand to it, but it’s a corner. End of calculation.
As this was a corner, we now need a new calculation:
Caltulation #3: Corner kick-taker Vs Offensive Team Vs Defensive Team Vs Goalie
I’m not going to explain this one, but you get the idea of how it would work.
The Weak Team Beating Strong Team “Random” Argument
The biggest beef I have with people on the forums is when they say “Team A is a lot weaker, it should not have won”. I say to you, why?
Say for example you have Team A who has an overall star rating of 13 going up against a stronger team with an overall star rating of 17. Should the 17 team win every time? No, that would be unrealistic because weak teams DO win against stronger teams in real life.
But, what happens if that weak team happens to have 1… just 1 truly superstar player, who himself has an OR of 250, perfect EOR and EQ (read the forums for explanations) and a great shot. If that guy gets the ball, chances are he’s better than the defenders or the goalie on Team B. The calculations therefore are going to give him a good chance of scoring the goal. Now if he happens to get the ball 5 times during a game he might get 2 shots away and score on both of them. Going the other way Team A may have 4 “good” defenders who managed to shut down Team B’s scorers. All of a sudden you have a game that might end 2-0 to the seemingly weaker team.
The thing is, while the team may be weaker overall, the system does not look at the results as a single calculation. So, please, you need to take into account the individuals plays involved before assuming a team should have one or lost.